A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycling: almost actual science



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 16th 19, 05:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from
Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.


I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1
to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.


Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal
crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is
not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean.

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual
protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the
bike lane.


Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were
not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes
and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation.

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

--
- Frank Krygowski


Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths.

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.
Ads
  #22  
Old May 16th 19, 05:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from
Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1
to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.


Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal
crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is
not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean.

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual
protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the
bike lane.


Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were
not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes
and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation.

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

--
- Frank Krygowski


Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths.

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.


We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking
protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that.
The link to the relevant report is above.

They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase
bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that
street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route
there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in
car-bike crashes.

The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT
necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at
intersections.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #23  
Old May 16th 19, 06:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from
Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1
to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.

Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal
crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is
not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean..

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual
protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the
bike lane.

Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were
not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes
and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation..

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

--
- Frank Krygowski


Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths.

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.


We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking
protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that.
The link to the relevant report is above.

They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase
bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that
street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route
there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in
car-bike crashes.

The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT
necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at
intersections.


--
- Frank Krygowski


and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash.

Cheers
  #24  
Old May 16th 19, 07:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On 5/16/2019 1:19 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from
Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1
to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.

Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal
crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is
not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean.

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual
protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the
bike lane.

Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were
not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes
and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation.

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths.

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.


We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking
protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that.
The link to the relevant report is above.

They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase
bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that
street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route
there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in
car-bike crashes.

The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT
necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at
intersections.


--
- Frank Krygowski


and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash.


Exactly!


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old May 16th 19, 11:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from
Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1
to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.

Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal
crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is
not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean.

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual
protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the
bike lane.

Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were
not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes
and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation.

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths.

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.


We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking
protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that.
The link to the relevant report is above.

They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase
bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that
street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route
there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in
car-bike crashes.

The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT
necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at
intersections.


--
- Frank Krygowski


and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash.

Cheers


Bad traffic design is not the fault of the bicyclists. For instance - a couple of blocks from my home there is a bike lane that is directly on the right edge of a road in front of a shopping area. For an entire block people and particularly women, will come out of this parking area, across the sidewalk and into the bike lane. And MOST of the traffic flow is along that same area. Consequently I ride to the right of the middle lane which has enough lane width for passing if some jackass has the feeling that he must pass a bicycle when there is invariably a red light at the end of that block.
  #26  
Old May 17th 19, 03:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On 5/16/2019 6:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from
Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1
to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.

Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal
crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is
not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean.

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual
protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the
bike lane.

Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were
not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes
and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation.

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths.

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.

We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking
protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that.
The link to the relevant report is above.

They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase
bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that
street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route
there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in
car-bike crashes.

The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT
necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at
intersections.


--
- Frank Krygowski


and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash.

Cheers


Bad traffic design is not the fault of the bicyclists. For instance - a couple of blocks from my home there is a bike lane that is directly on the right edge of a road in front of a shopping area. For an entire block people and particularly women, will come out of this parking area, across the sidewalk and into the bike lane. And MOST of the traffic flow is along that same area. Consequently I ride to the right of the middle lane which has enough lane width for passing if some jackass has the feeling that he must pass a bicycle when there is invariably a red light at the end of that block.


That sounds like the technique I'd use in that situation.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #27  
Old May 17th 19, 08:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:44:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 6:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Bad traffic design is not the fault of the bicyclists. For instance - a couple of blocks from my home there is a bike lane that is directly on the right edge of a road in front of a shopping area. For an entire block people and particularly women, will come out of this parking area, across the sidewalk and into the bike lane. And MOST of the traffic flow is along that same area. Consequently I ride to the right of the middle lane which has enough lane width for passing if some jackass has the feeling that he must pass a bicycle when there is invariably a red light at the end of that block.


That sounds like the technique I'd use in that situation.


The local drivers are so stupid they have a hard time dealing with this - they're going to drive to the following corner and turn right. There is a completely open right hand lane. They will pull to the left, pass me then pull over two lanes into the right lane to turn right.

I suppose that this is something they are unfamiliar with so they don't know how to treat it but you would think that they would understand that the threats from people speeding out of the supermarket parking lot and the middle lane that I'm in turning into a bike lane the other side of the stop light might give them at least a clue.
  #28  
Old May 22nd 19, 10:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Thu, 16 May 2019 09:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown
significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes,
like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF? The connection times
out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I can download it in Chrome.

Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went
down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up.


Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And
fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to
zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to
the mean.

From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do
actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion.
They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow
vehicles to enter the bike lane.


Ah yes, not safe enough!

The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and
they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes
were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying
stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier
separation.

Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough.

Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to
think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls
through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher
bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some
California town.

Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city
budget of Cupertino!

-- - Frank Krygowski


Frank, you don't seem to realize what a problem illegal aliens are.
While the majority of them may be good neighbors and hard workers,
there is a VERY large criminal contingent. We have a local vocal
bicycling group and they have GoPro's mounted front and rear and the
things you see would give you the willies and maybe stop you from
riding in areas with large illegal populations.


Earth to Tom. WTF are you talking about Martians for? They're not the
problem.

The people who give me the willies around here are Caucasians in Audis.
Damned near every driver who's tried to kill me in the past year,
whether I'm in my car or on my bike, has been a white male in an Audi.
Why do aggressive lunatics seem to buy Audis?
  #29  
Old May 22nd 19, 10:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Thu, 16 May 2019 09:19:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed.


Yes, from 0.25% of road users to 0.5% around here. Boom! Love to see
those hockey stick growth lines on charts!
  #30  
Old May 23rd 19, 01:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Cycling: almost actual science

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 10:18:10 PM UTC+1, Tim McNamara wrote:

Damned near every driver who's tried to kill me in the past year,


And that's just your neighbours and colleagues, Timmie. Some must have tried more than once.

Andre Jute
If at first you don't succeed, by an Audi and try again
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An actual cycling question - plagued by flats lately Anton Berlin Racing 8 May 25th 10 10:27 AM
new blog post - the science of cycling position TriAdmin Racing 0 March 22nd 08 09:10 PM
new blog post - the science of cycling position TriAdmin Rides 0 March 22nd 08 09:10 PM
Cycling News Science [email protected] Racing 3 September 28th 05 07:44 PM
actual cycling caps davek UK 10 May 6th 05 03:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.